Especially a 6 bolt SOHC one!
The DOHC could take it. My 91 Talon TSi dyno'd out just shy of 400hp and it was trouble free (until I ignored the timing belt). We are also talking about a compression ratio of 8.something:1 so there was loads of room for boost without getting knock.

For funsies I did the chart with the new engine and 3.9. It puts almost identical torque down as the 86/BRZ with the 4.3 with the exception of getting to 60 without shifting into 3rd. That would be depressing if they chased a 0-60 magazine number and effectively nullified the engine’s torque increase, but I could definitely see it happen since that will boost fuel economy rating, too.

If that happens, I would snatch up a used 86 instead. I’d get the same performance and pay a lot less money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That would throw wrench into the paper racers stats!

With so many 75-80mph highways what they need is a 7th gear. Too bad Corvette and Porsche are the only ones who have made a 7mt.

No you wouldn't! Not even close. "Better" (numerically higher) gearing does NOT magic you power/weight, which is what determines performance.

I did my own plots of torque-to-the-wheels 2.0 vs. 2.4 with different gearing.
Old 2.0 with 4.3 gears in black vs. new 2.4 with 3.9 gears in red:

Makes me wonder how we ever managed with the old three on the tree!

Yeah, that looks correct. The current BRZ would need to be running something like a 5.0-5.1 FD to have comparable in-gear acceleration, and that's not even accounting for the torque curve, but just the peak figures.

“Same performance” was hyperbolic, but there are definitely performance downsides to stretching out the gearing. The wheel torque is dragged lower and the x axis stretches. On a car that will only be operating in a performance envelope of up to ~120mph, I’d rather have the graph stretched vertically (torque multiplication) than horizontally (increasing the mechanical top speed).

Nice software, btw. Do a version with a 4.3 versus a 3.9.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

just go full on semi truck and give it 10+ speeds.

X-axis "stretch" means you can stay in a lower gear for longer! Which can *help* acceleration performance.

From 120 up to ~135mph, you can see that the 2.4 liter with 3.9 gears has a BIG advantage over 2.0 with 4.3 gears, 33% more drive torque to the wheels!

That IS 4.3 vs. 3.9!

Here's FA20 w/4.3 in black, FA24 w/3.9 in red, FA24 w/4.3 in blue:

Let alone the 2 speed Pontiac GTO's of yesteryear... "lovingly" referred to as "slow and go"

I was asking for FA24 with 3.9 and 4.3... which you kindly provided.

FA24 with 4.3 all day for me. If gen 2 comes with a 3.9, the substantial cost savings of the MY17-20 could tempt me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:thumbup:

For me, 3.9 or 4.1 or 4.3, I'm fine. The 2022 is going to be quite a bit quicker with any of those ratios vs. FA20/4.3. Indeed, if you look at Car and Driver test results, the '17 car with 4.3 gears was pretty much 0.1 second quicker at every ZERO-to-XX mph, with the same 1/4-mile trap speed of 95mph. Basically you get one tenth of a second ONLY going from 0-30(ish), beyond that, identical acceleration, despite a few more horsepower and only +13 lb..
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B78...YU3YzZ0JB/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B78...uaXRfRl9j/view
0 -30mph: '13 = 2.3s, '17 = 2.2s
30-40mph: '13 = 1.0s, '17 = 1.0s
40-50mph: '13 = 1.4s, '17 = 1.4s
50-60mph: '13 = 1.6s, '17 = 1.6s
60-70mph: '13 = 1.9s, '17 = 1.9s
70-80mph: '13 = 2.2s, '17 = 2.3s
80-90mph: '13 = 2.8s, '17 = 2.7s
90-100mph: '13 = 3.2s, '17 = 3.2s

30-100mph: '13 = 14.1s, '17 = 14.1s

4.3 vs. 4.1 just wasn't that big a deal, unless you are specifically interested in that 0.1s advantage from 0-30!

I'm old enough to have learned to drive a standard with a 3 speed. I felt like a real racer type when I got my first car with an oh-my-god-how-great-is-this gen-u-ine 4 speed! A 4 on the floor! (Even though it was a piddling Ford Pinto).

That 4 speed is what got imprinted on my mind as to what a manual transmission is. To this day, if I'm distracted or daydreaming, I'll occasionally find myself cruising down the highway in 4th gear. I have to remember to shift into 5th, and going all the way into 6th gear takes a conscious effort I'm sometimes barely capable of.

There's theory, and then there's real world points of diminishing returns. Unless an engine's powerband is so microscopically narrow that it only produces useful power in a few hundred rpm, or unless someone has specific track needs, I think that truth be told, 5 properly spaced gears would probably suffice for most engines.

Proper spacing is important. My Mustang GT has a 6 speed, but first is uselessly too low, and 3-5 are so close together as to be almost redundant.

But I still think a 6 speed is cool, and would miss it if the number of "speeds" was reduced.